Ex Parte Dordi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 25, 2018

13534366 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 25, 2018)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/534,366 06/27/2012 Yezdi Dordi LAM2P568B.DIV 2881
119049 7590 01/29/2018
MPG, LLP and Lam Research Corp.
Albert Penilla
710 Lakeway Drive
Suite 200
Sunnyvale, CA 94085
EXAMINER
FORD, NATHAN K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1716
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/29/2018 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
lamptomail @ mpiplaw. com
mpdocket @ mpiplaw .com
eofficeaction @ appcoll.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE
THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YEZDI DORDI,1 2
John Boyd, Tirachirapalli Arunagiri,
Hyungsuk Alexander Yoon, Fritz C. Redeker, William Thie,
and Arthur M. Howald
Appeal 2017-003893
Application 13/534,366
Technology Center 1700
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, MARKNAGUMO, and
MONTE T. SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Yezdi Dordi, John Boyd, Tirachirapalli Arunagiri, Hyungsuk
Alexander Yoon, Fritz C. Redeker, William Thie, and Arthur M. Howald
(“Dordi”) timely appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
1 The real party in interest is identified as LAM Research Corporation
(Appeal Brief, filed 4 May 2016 (“Br.”), 3.)
2 Office Action mailed 8 October 2015 (“Final Rejection,” cited as “FR”),
as modified by entry of the Rule 116 amendments filed 8 December 2014.
(Advisory Action mailed 24 December 2015 (“Adv.”).)
Appeal 2017-003893
Application 13/534,366
of all pending claims 1, 2, 4, 7—10, and 12. We have jurisdiction.
35 U.S.C. § 6. We affirm.
OPINION
A. Introduction3
The subject matter on appeal relates to an integrated “system”—in this
case, an apparatus—for depositing copper conductor lines and vias on
substrates. The '366 Specification teaches that electro-migration, “EM,”
which is the motion of metal atoms in response to a “current flow at a rate
determined by the current density” (Spec. 3 [1]), degrades the structural
integrity of conductive lines and becomes more severe as conductor line
widths are decreased. (Id.) EM in copper lines is said to be a surface
phenomenon that cannot be controlled simply by adding small amounts of
dopant, as suffices to control EM in aluminum, which is said to be a bulk
phenomenon. (Id. at [2].) According to the Specification, it is known that
capping copper with a cobalt-alloy capping layer deposited by electroless
deposition (“ELD”) significantly improves EM, compared to capping copper
with silicon carbide (SiC). (Id. at 4 [4].) However, a thin copper oxide
layer, formed by exposure of the copper to air, is said to inhibit ELD of the
cobalt alloys; and other contaminants on copper and dielectric surfaces, such
as organic materials and metal oxides, can cause pattern-dependent plating
3 Application 13/534,366, Processes and Systems for Engineering a Barrier
Surface for Copper Deposition, filed 27 June 2012 as a division of
11/514,038, filed 30 August 2006, issued as U.S. Patent No. 8,241,701
on 14 August 2012. We refer to the “’366 Specification,” which we cite as
“Spec.”
2
Appeal 2017-003893
Application 13/534,366
effects. (Id.) Thus, environmental control, particularly the exclusion of
oxygen during certain stages of processing, is said to be crucial to achieving
good interfacial adhesion of the capping layer to the copper conductor, and
good EM performance of the copper conductive lines and connections.
(Id. at 5 [4].) “Until now, however,” the Specification states, “there is no
electroless Cu seed layer that can adhere to the ALD [atomic layer
deposition] TaN [tantalum nitride] barrier films produced.” (Id.)
Dordi seeks patent protection for an integrated system for depositing
copper on substrate, an embodiment of which is illustrated in Figure 10B,
reproduced below.
{Figure 10B illustrates an integrated copper deposition system 1050}
The integrated system is said to “allow substrate processing that
requires a mixture of low pressure dry process, high pressure process, and
wet processes to be integrated together to limit oxygen exposure at critical
3
Appeal 2017-003893
Application 13/534,366
processing steps.” {Id. at 63 [173].) Substrates, e.g., wafers 1055,4 are
introduced to system 1050 via lab-ambient transfer module 1060, where they
may be subjected to processes in reactor 1083 that do not require a
controlled environment. The substrates are transported via second
loadlock 1065 to vacuum transfer module 1070, where they may be
subjected to vacuum (< 1 torr) processes such as plasma cleaning and ALD,
which are associated with dual damascene processes of forming a metal line
in a trench, removing overfill (the excess copper), and removing organic and
metal oxide contaminants from the exposed copper and dielectric surfaces.
The substrates are then transported via first loadlock 1075 to controlled
ambient transfer module 1080, where they may be subjected to processes
that are conducted at ambient pressures in aqueous solutions, such as
electroless deposition, electroplating, and rinse and dry operations in
reactors 1081 and 1083 (left), in an environment from which oxygen gas
may be excluded. The finished wafers are then transported back to lab-
ambient transfer module 1060, where they may be subjected to cleaning
operations in the ambient atmosphere in reactor 1083 (right), and then
removed.
Claim 1 is representative and reads:
An integrated system [1050] for processing a
substrate [1055] in a controlled environment to enable
deposition of a thin copper seed layer on a surface of a
metallic barrier layer of a copper interconnect, comprising:
a lab-ambient transfer chamber [1060]
4 Throughout this Opinion, for clarity, labels to elements are presented in
bold font, regardless of their presentation in the original document.
4
Appeal 2017-003893
Application 13/534,366
having an interface that defines an entry location for
substrates into the integrated system,
the interface further defining an exit location for
substrates out of the integrated system, wherein
the integrated system does not include entry or exit
locations that are not defined at the interface, wherein
the interface couples to one or more substrate cassettes;
a vacuum transfer chamber [1070] operated under vacuum
at a pressure less than 1 Torr, wherein
at least one vacuum process module for performing a
dry process is coupled to the vacuum transfer chamber;
a vacuum process module for cleaning [1071] an exposed
surface of a metal oxide of a underlying metal in the
integrated system, wherein
the underlying metal is part of an underlying interconnect,
the copper interconnect is electrically connected to the
underlying interconnect, wherein
the vacuum process module for cleaning is one of the at
least one vacuum process module coupled to the vacuum
transfer chamber, and
is operated under vacuum at a pressure less than 1 Torr;
a vacuum process module for depositing [1073] the
metallic barrier layer, wherein the vacuum process module
for depositing the metallic barrier layer is
one of the at least one vacuum dry process module
coupled to the vacuum transfer chamber, and
is operated under vacuum at a pressure less than 1 Torr;
a controlled-ambient transfer chamber [1080]
filled with an inert gas selected from a group of inert
gases, wherein
at least one controlled-ambient process module for
performing a wet process is
coupled to the controlled-ambient transfer chamber; and
an electroless copper deposition process module [1081]
used to deposit the thin layer of copper seed layer on the
surface of the metallic barrier layer, wherein the electroless
5
Appeal 2017-003893
Application 13/534,366
copper deposition process module is one of the at least one
controlled-ambient process modules
coupled to the controlled-ambient transfer
chamber [1080];
a first loadlock [1075] coupled directly to each of
the vacuum transfer chamber [1070] and
the controlled-ambient transfer chamber [1080],
the vacuum transfer chamber and the controlled ambient
transfer chamber being respectively coupled to opposite
sides of the first loadlock, wherein
the first loadlock assists the substrate to be transferred
between the vacuum transfer chamber and the
controlled-ambient transfer chamber,
the first loadlock being configured to be operated
under vacuum at pressure less than 1 Torr or
to be filled with an inert gas selected from a group of
inert gases; and
a second loadlock [1065] coupled directly to each of
the vacuum transfer chamber [1070] and
the lab-ambient transfer chamber [1060],
the vacuum transfer chamber and the lab-ambient
transfer chamber being respectively coupled to opposite
sides of the second loadlock, wherein
the second loadlock assists the substrate to be
transferred between the vacuum transfer chamber and
the lab-ambient transfer chamber,
the second loadlock being configured to be operated
under vacuum at pressure less than 1 Torr or
at lab ambient or
to be filled with an inert gas selected from a group of
inert gases;
wherein the electroless copper deposition process
module [1081] is also used to deposit a gap-fill copper
layer over the thin copper seed layer;
wherein a substrate cleaning process module [1083] is
used to clean the substrate surface after depositing the gap-
fill copper layer over the thin layer copper seed layer,
6
Appeal 2017-003893
Application 13/534,366
the substrate cleaning process module [1083] is one of
the at least one controlled-ambient process module
coupled to the controlled-ambient transfer
module [1080].
(Claims App., Br. 21—22; some indentation, paragraphing, emphasis, and
bracketed labels to Figure 10B added.)
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection:5,6’5 6 7
A.8 Claims 1, 2, 4, 7—10, and 12 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of the combined teachings of
Biberger9 and Ting.10
5 Examiner’s Answer mailed 31 October 2016 (“Ans.”).
6 The statement of rejections reflects the entry of amendments
filed 8 December 2015, after the final rejection, which were entered by the
Examiner. (Advisory Action mailed 24 December 2015, maintaining all
rejections.)
7 Because this application was filed before the 16 March 2013, effective
date of the America Invents Act, we refer to the pre-AIA version of the
statute.
8 The Examiner “restates” this rejection in the Answer. (Ans. 2—3.)
9 Maximillian A. Biberger and Paul E. Schilling, Method of depositing
metal film and metal decomposition cluster tool including supercritical
drying/cleaning module, U.S. Patent Application Publication
2004/0229449 A1 (2004).
10 Chiu H. Ting and William H. Holtkamp, Integrated vacuum and plating
cluster system, U.S. Patent No. 6,017,820 (2000).
7
Appeal 2017-003893
Application 13/534,366
A'.11 Claims 1, 2, 4, 7—10, and 12 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of the combined teachings of
Ting and either Holtkamp12 or Biberger.
B. Claims 1, 4, 7—10, and 12 stand rejected under Obviousness-
type double patenting in view of claims 1, 3—5, 9, and 10 of
Boyd.13
B1. Claim 2 stands rejected under Obviousness-type double
patenting in view of claims 1, 3—5, 9, and 10 of Boyd, and
Ting.
B. Discussion
The Board’s findings of fact throughout this Opinion are supported by
a preponderance of the evidence of record.
Initially, we find that Dordi does not contest the obviousness-type
double patenting rejections maintained on appeal. These rejections are
therefore summarily affirmed.
11 Set out in the Final Rejection (FR 4—5), maintained in the Advisory
Action (Adv. 2,1. 4), and discussed briefly in the Answer (Ans. 3—4, § 3).
12 William H. Holtkamp et al., Linearly distributed semiconductor workpiece
processing tool, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/0274810 Al
(2007).
13 John Boyd et al., Controlled ambient system for interface engineering,
U.S. Patent No. 9,117,860 B12 (25 August 2015).
8
Appeal 2017-003893
Application 13/534,366
Turning to the obviousness rejections, The Examiner finds that Ting
describes in Figure 4, reproduced below,
{Ting Figure 4 shows an integrated vacuum and plating system 50}
a system 50 having first processing system 12 with modules 36 attached to
vacuum transfer chamber 20 for vacuum processes such as sputtering or
CVD [chemical vapor deposition], and a second processing system 14 with
modules 36 attached to a controlled-ambient transfer chamber 20 for wet
plating processes at atmospheric pressure. (FR 4.14) Vacuum cluster tool 12
14 The Examiner identifies the transfer chambers as 72 and 70, respectively,
but these label the ports between connecting interface chamber 68 and
cluster tools 12 and 14, respectively. The mislabeling is harmless. See
Figure 2 and accompanying text for details of a cluster tool. Fabel 20
9
Appeal 2017-003893
Application 13/534,366
is connected to controlled ambient cluster tool 14 by connecting interface
chambers 66 and 68, and by wafer handling mechanism 64. The Examiner
finds that the processing chambers are not arranged “linearly” as required by
the appealed claims. (FR 5,11. 3—6.)
The Examiner finds that Holtkamp discloses in Figure 6 (not
reproduced here), serial arrangements of the dry and wet processing modules
are already known. (Id. at 11. 6—8.)
The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to combine the
teachings of Ting with the teachings of Holtkamp to obtain a processing
apparatus within the scope of the appealed claims due to the demonstrated
equivalency of “spoke” and “serial” organizations of wet-dry integrated
tools. (Id. at 11. 14—19.)
Dordi urges that Holtkamp merely provides a list of material
deposition techniques and does not suggest the specific arrangement of
transfer chambers, connecting loadlocks, and process modules required by
the appealed claims. (Br. 17, 2d para.) This argument is marginal at best
because it lacks specificity. However, the Examiner does not explain how or
why the cited disclosures of Holtkamp (Holtkamp [0004] and [0026]) would
have suggested the single point of entry and exit at the interface of the lab-
ambient transfer chamber with the laboratory. Given that the Examiner
finds such an arrangement is not described by Ting, a more detailed
explanation of the basis for determining that such an arrangement would
have been obvious is necessary. We decline to scour the record in the first
denotes the “central wafer handling system,” also referred to as the “robotic
chamber.” (Ting col. 3,11. 46-48.)
10
Appeal 2017-003893
Application 13/534,366
instance seeking evidence that might support the conclusion of obviousness
and weighing that evidence against any evidence to the contrary we might
come across. Our primary role is review, not examination de novo.
We therefore reverse the rejection in view of the combined teachings
of Ting and Holtkamp.
The Examiner also finds that Biberger discloses in Figure 3, below,
{Biberger Figure 3 illustrates a metal deposition cluster tool 40}
a cluster tool 40 comprising a lab-ambient transfer chamber 64 [bottom
center], which establishes the point of substrate ingress and egress, a second
transfer chamber 46 [sic: 44; 46 denotes a transfer robot
(Biberger 4 [0043])]15 coupled to a plurality of quasi-wet processing
15 Biberger is not entirely consistent in distinguishing the transfer chamber
from the centrally located robotic arm.
11
Appeal 2017-003893
Application 13/534,366
modules, and a third transfer chamber 54 [sic: 52] coupled to a plurality of
dry processing modules. (Id. at 11. 9-13.)
For essentially the same reasons given for Holtkamp, the Examiner
concludes it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Ting with
the teachings of Biberger to obtain a processing apparatus within the scope
of the appealed claims due to the demonstrated equivalency of “spoke” and
“serial” organizations of wet-dry integrated tools. (Id. at 11. 14—19.)
Dordi objects, correctly, that the Examiner erred in finding that
Biberger describes both wet, ambient pressure, and dry vacuum process
chambers. Both chambers are vacuum chambers. (Biberger 4 [0044] (front
transfer module 46 [sic: 44] is at a vacuum); and [0045] (back transfer
module 52 also operates at vacuum).) However, this error is harmless given
that, as discussed supra at 9, Ting describes vacuum and ambient pressure
chambers in an integrated system for semiconductor processing in which
sputtering or CVD processes are conducted in a vacuum and plating
processes occur in an isolated section at ambient pressure under an
atmosphere of a non-active gas. The use of the single entry-and-exit port
described by Biberger would have been understood by the artisan as another
way to conduct the invention described by Ting, which, Ting advises, “may
be practiced without these specific details.” (Ting col. 2,1. 67—col. 3,1. 1.)
Dordi argues that the specific limitations of claim 2 (hydrogen
reduction chamber), which depends from claim 1, and of independent
claim 12 (similar to claim 1, but more specific in several places, in
particular, specifying a dry-in/dry-out processing attached to the controlled-
ambient transfer module) are not described by the references. (Br. 19.) We
12
Appeal 2017-003893
Application 13/534,366
are not persuaded of harmful error, as the record indicates that both types of
reaction chambers were well known in the wafer-processing art, and the
references indicate considerable flexibility in the adaptation of the disclosed
integrated system to known processes. (See, e.g., Ting col. 2,1. 67—col. 3,
1. 1; Biberger4 [0050]; andHoltkamp 19 [0063].)
Dordi does not argue for patentability based on so-called secondary
considerations such as unexpected results.
We therefore affirm the rejection of all claims in view of the
combined teachings of Biberger and Ting.
C. Order
It is ORDERED that the rejections of claims 1, 2, 4, 7—10, and 12 for
obviousness-type double patenting in view of Boyd (claim 2, further in view
of Ting) are affirmed.
It is FURTHER ORDERED that the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 7—10,
and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of the combined teachings of Ting
and Holtkamp is reversed.
It is FURTHER ORDERED that the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 7—10,
and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of the combined teachings of Ting
and Biberger is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
13